From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262161AbVADUkC (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:40:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262162AbVADUjx (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:39:53 -0500 Received: from willy.net1.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60]:28941 "EHLO willy.net1.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262155AbVADUjK (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:39:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:30:33 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: William Lee Irwin III Cc: Adrian Bunk , Diego Calleja , davidsen@tmr.com, aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050104203033.GC22075@alpha.home.local> References: <20050103004551.GK4183@stusta.de> <20050103011935.GQ29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103053304.GA7048@alpha.home.local> <20050103142412.490239b8.diegocg@teleline.es> <20050103134727.GA2980@stusta.de> <20050104125738.GC2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104150810.GD3097@stusta.de> <20050104153445.GH2708@holomorphy.com> <20050104165301.GF3097@stusta.de> <20050104195725.GQ2708@holomorphy.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050104195725.GQ2708@holomorphy.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 11:57:25AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 05:53:01PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > My opinion is to fork 2.7 pretty soon and to allow into 2.6 only the > > amount of changes that were allowed into 2.4 after 2.5 forked. > > Looking at 2.4, this seems to be a promising model. > > This must be considered relative to the size of the source code. > Just because they're more changes than you can personally track does > not mean they're large numbers of changes relative to the source's size. > > Users' timidity in these regards should be taken as little more than > a sign that the scale of the kernel's source is increasing, which is a > good thing, as the kernel may then benefit from economies of scale. > > The kernel's scale has long since increased beyond the point where an > individual can effectively track its changes in realtime, and small > matters of degree such as are being moaned about now are insubstantial. > Similarly, counts of bugs and regressions should probably also be > considered relative to the size of the kernel source. William, I strongly agree with you regarding this (fortunately, it seems to happen sometimes :-)) Speaking for myself, I read and try to understand *all* the changelog of 2.4 pre releases, and even often take a look at linux.bkbits.net to see if some things have changed, that I could grab before waiting for a release, but I almost never read 2.6 changelog (except the first hundreds of lines that Linus announces with a final release), because it's far too much. I don't even know how some people still keep in touch with this amount of changes. Cheers, Willy